Albert Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Jesus is RoFl slow on C64... http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=A8_-78G8D_I&...feature=related Good grief!!! I've never seen the 64 version. It looks terrible, the terrain update is soooo slooooow Wow, yeah, that is pretty slow. I had never seen the C64 version either. And I have to say, the music and audio sound much better on the 8-bit versus the C64. Plus you get the nice Lucasfilm intro and the spiffy spaceship. ..Al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jentzsch Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Good grief!!! I've never seen the 64 version. It looks terrible, the terrain update is soooo slooooow Koronis Rift proved that the C64 could do better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 (edited) Good grief!!! I've never seen the 64 version. It looks terrible, the terrain update is soooo slooooow Koronis Rift proved that the C64 could do better. Nope! The depth of view is reduced (compared to the Atari version) to have some "speed" ... that's all. Vice versa .... The Eidolon and Koronis Rift show that the A8 could do better with Rescue on Fractalus. I really cannot understand people saying that the C64 Koronis Rift version is any good. Compared to the Atari version it is garbage in gameplay and graphics. Edited January 13, 2009 by emkay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 46 - STEALTH Atari screenshots Another 3D shooter game. First version on Atari called LANDSCAPE and was published by BR0DERBOUND under the name STEALTH. Atari version have better display because the amount of colors. C64 screenshot That game is Awesome! I used to play it all the time back in the day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godzilla Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Man, Star Raiders II (aka Last Star Fighter,) is SOooooOOOooo good. That game is awesome. I love all the different elements, the space combat, the big base ships, soaking energy from the sun, the barrier, the planet side combat and bombings. Great stuff that the c64 version doesn't hold a candle to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Man, Star Raiders II (aka Last Star Fighter,) is SOooooOOOooo good. That game is awesome. I love all the different elements, the space combat, the big base ships, soaking energy from the sun, the barrier, the planet side combat and bombings. Great stuff that the c64 version doesn't hold a candle to Are some of those elements missing from the C64 version? ..Al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 (edited) Look at the pictures.... The Atari version shows 3 mountains one after the other while the C64 version always shows only two of them.... Not to talk about the nicely coloured scene and the fading of the mountains and the overall colours on the A8.. The C64 version looks and plays flat... Edited January 13, 2009 by emkay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jentzsch Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Koronis Rift proved that the C64 could do better. Nope! The depth of view is reduced (compared to the Atari version) to have some "speed" ... that's all. Vice versa .... The Eidolon and Koronis Rift show that the A8 could do better with Rescue on Fractalus. I really cannot understand people saying that the C64 Koronis Rift version is any good. Compared to the Atari version it is garbage in gameplay and graphics. You know, your belowed Atari can still be great without constantly dissing the C64. Fanboys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomSW Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I wonder why so much Commodore freaks do things on 2600. Wasn't Commodore enough smart to do such a console itself? Anyway - it's the proof that Atari Rules! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 without constantly dissing the C64. Fanboys Actually, IF I have a "beloved" machine, I'd talk about the Amiga (ocs/ecs) And, actually, I was talking about the game, not the machine itself! And, possibly, the C64 cannot get enough dissing by the fact that the A8 got dissed enough by the marketing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godzilla Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Man, Star Raiders II (aka Last Star Fighter,) is SOooooOOOooo good. That game is awesome. I love all the different elements, the space combat, the big base ships, soaking energy from the sun, the barrier, the planet side combat and bombings. Great stuff that the c64 version doesn't hold a candle to Are some of those elements missing from the C64 version? ..Al Hmmm.. the bulk of my experience with the game comes from playing the 'last star fighter' proto (with the awesome title screen and music,) so there may be elements that were removed from both the a8bit & c64 'star radiers 2' `downgrade.` The c64 version played so poorly compared to the a8bit version that I never really got into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godzilla Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Koronis Rift proved that the C64 could do better. Nope! The depth of view is reduced (compared to the Atari version) to have some "speed" ... that's all. Vice versa .... The Eidolon and Koronis Rift show that the A8 could do better with Rescue on Fractalus. I really cannot understand people saying that the C64 Koronis Rift version is any good. Compared to the Atari version it is garbage in gameplay and graphics. You know, your belowed Atari can still be great without constantly dissing the C64. Fanboys As a long-time platform agnostic who loves both platforms (would you believe (even after reading what I write in here,) that the c64 is STILL, to this day, my favorite computer ever made on this gods green earth (amiga with a honorable second.)) and lived through the days of armies of c64 fanboys dissing, I think it's nice to have a focused topic on the instances where the underdog DID get the better game. I've always thought it was pretty evident the a8s had better hardware (that was never really used to it's fullest potential back in the day, due to the c64 long outliving the a8,) and the c64 had better software. In the big picture, software makes the machine, simple as that. But it's nice to focus on the instances that show how things might have been if a8 development had continued (kinda like how I think the dreamcast could easily still be competing with the ps2 if it were still actively developed for,) Much like firefly, a lot of times, it's the losers that are more interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 (edited) Koronis Rift proved that the C64 could do better. Nope! The depth of view is reduced (compared to the Atari version) to have some "speed" ... that's all. Vice versa .... The Eidolon and Koronis Rift show that the A8 could do better with Rescue on Fractalus. I really cannot understand people saying that the C64 Koronis Rift version is any good. Compared to the Atari version it is garbage in gameplay and graphics. You know, your belowed Atari can still be great without constantly dissing the C64. Fanboys it's so easy and fun! It is Atariage this is where you would EXPECT to have fanboys. Lots of them! Go Atari! Edited January 14, 2009 by atarian63 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peteym5 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I have noticed there is much debate centering on Atari 8-bit computer verses the Commodore 64. Probably these 2 computer systems are the most popular systems put out from their respective companies. If you put the Atari 8 against a Vic-20, 16, or +4, the A8 will certainly out perform those systems. The A8 also out did the Apple II. I think Atari suffered more from company management. They had a great piece of technology for the time and should have exploited better. Think the 5200 layout was a big mistake, should have been made compatible with the 400/800 computers, same memory map, joystick ports, and carts. Would have been cheaper and have a large game library. It takes a 16bit computer/game console at higher clock speeds to out perform an Atari 8-bit systems. Still stand by the notion of it coming down to the programmers and utilizing the abilities of the system. It is also who has better software available for their system and that is what attracts people to buy them. Its very rarely the hardware abilities itself that sells the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazyace Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 There weren't many 'global' computers - the TI99 was the only other personal computer which could compare against the c64/a8 .. or the MSX ( which wa the same as the TI graphically ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven/TQA Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Good grief!!! I've never seen the 64 version. It looks terrible, the terrain update is soooo slooooow Koronis Rift proved that the C64 could do better. Nope! The depth of view is reduced (compared to the Atari version) to have some "speed" ... that's all. Vice versa .... The Eidolon and Koronis Rift show that the A8 could do better with Rescue on Fractalus. I really cannot understand people saying that the C64 Koronis Rift version is any good. Compared to the Atari version it is garbage in gameplay and graphics. Emkay... Thomas ment... C64 can do better (not as the Atari version) but as the C64 version of RoFl.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youki Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I have noticed there is much debate centering on Atari 8-bit computer verses the Commodore 64. Probably these 2 computer systems are the most popular systems put out from their respective companies. If you put the Atari 8 against a Vic-20, 16, or +4, the A8 will certainly out perform those systems. The A8 also out did the Apple II. I think Atari suffered more from company management. They had a great piece of technology for the time and should have exploited better. Think the 5200 layout was a big mistake, should have been made compatible with the 400/800 computers, same memory map, joystick ports, and carts. Would have been cheaper and have a large game library. It takes a 16bit computer/game console at higher clock speeds to out perform an Atari 8-bit systems. Still stand by the notion of it coming down to the programmers and utilizing the abilities of the system. It is also who has better software available for their system and that is what attracts people to buy them. Its very rarely the hardware abilities itself that sells the system. 100% agree. except that some 8bits out perform the Atari 8 bits. ok , C64 and A8 are comparable the A8 outperfom the C64 on certain side but the C64 outperform the A8 on other. And that's clear that the A8bit has not been fully exploited. The Commodore plus 4 also outperfom the A800 and the C64 on some point. (very few...) But the Amstrad CPC 6128+ (the "plus" is important) cleary outperform on ALL point Atari 800 and C64 . (except may be music) http://www.system-cfg.com/detailcollection.php?ident=3 this 8bit had 4096 color palette , hardware scrolling, sprites etc... The too few games that exploit it really are easly at a Atari ST level. (have a look to burning rubber or Robocop 2 ) Here some video of CPC+ game. (the CPC Plus and console Amstrad GX 400 shares the same hardware like XE GS and Atari 800xl or C64GS and C64) here some video. Amstrad GX 400 presentation , with video of Burning Rubber, Robocop 2 and a fighting game http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=T6oG7DRdBgI Prehistorik II http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=MavWmgzr2P8 Pro Tennis http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ9_WVp28E8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven/TQA Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 why can Speccy do this: http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=vzm9KkJ5lGI&...feature=related and Commie & Atari not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rybags Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I'd say more a case of it's not been tried. Look at the screen though... only looks like it's 24 characters wide, and not very high. I've thought up a few optimisations that might work on the A8... one day might get around to trying something, other stuff has to be finished first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youki Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 There weren't many 'global' computers - the TI99 was the only other personal computer which could compare against the c64/a8 .. or the MSX ( which wa the same as the TI graphically ) TI99 was a 16bit computer not a 8 bit. the MSX is largely out performed by C64 and A800 . Therefore there is excellent game on that plateform we don't find on others (for instance some excellent RPG) . MSX hardware is very close from Colecovision. MSX 2 are a bit better but not so. Following generation are lot better , but not lot of software exploit them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaPa Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 why can Speccy do this: http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=vzm9KkJ5lGI&...feature=related and Commie & Atari not? Because it doesn't run on standard speccy (at least not this fast). From discussion below this video: This is done using the Scorpion's turbo mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Emkay... Thomas ment... C64 can do better (not as the Atari version) but as the C64 version of RoFl.... I know what he meant.... But, I wrote several times before that particular Rescue on Fractalus benefits to be NOT the 1st version on an 8 Bit computer. It already has many optimized programming, compared to the Atari version. The C64 version is also build to run as fast as the CPU can do, while the Atari version is restricted to the screen refresh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven/TQA Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Emkay... yes. agreed. But who says that RoFl C64 is optimised in best way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesD Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 why can Speccy do this: http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=vzm9KkJ5lGI&...feature=related and Commie & Atari not? A much newer Russian clone of the Speccy with a high clock speed can do that. A standard Speccy would have jerky play and slow frame rates. Not exactly a fair comparison. The two color graphics helps a lot since there is less data to push. The Speccy stores the image data in one area and foreground/background color info is stored in a separate memory area. At it's best it's graphics look great... at their worst it's pretty ugly. The biggest advantage is speed but at the cost of flexibility. You can't change colors at the pixel level or even on every line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesD Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 (edited) 100% agree. except that some 8bits out perform the Atari 8 bits. ok , C64 and A8 are comparable the A8 outperfom the C64 on certain side but the C64 outperform the A8 on other. And that's clear that the A8bit has not been fully exploited. The Commodore plus 4 also outperfom the A800 and the C64 on some point. (very few...) But the Amstrad CPC 6128+ (the "plus" is important) cleary outperform on ALL point Atari 800 and C64 . (except may be music) http://www.system-cfg.com/detailcollection.php?ident=3 this 8bit had 4096 color palette , hardware scrolling, sprites etc... The too few games that exploit it really are easly at a Atari ST level. (have a look to burning rubber or Robocop 2 ) Here some video of CPC+ game. (the CPC Plus and console Amstrad GX 400 shares the same hardware like XE GS and Atari 800xl or C64GS and C64) here some video. Amstrad GX 400 presentation , with video of Burning Rubber, Robocop 2 and a fighting game http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=T6oG7DRdBgI Prehistorik II http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=MavWmgzr2P8 Pro Tennis http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ9_WVp28E8 Actually, if you look at a lot of the C64 games that were hacked to run on the Plus/4 it's pretty obvious that the higher clock speed makes up for the lack of sprites. If you look at some of the demos you'll see that it's capable of doing things easily rivaling the Atari or C64. It just depends on how well done a game is on a particular system. Sound... best to add a SID card as internal sound wasn't up to the other two. The CPC+ systems had some great hardware but it steals a lot of clock cycles from the CPU. Some games will be awesome. I'm guessing that the stolen clock cycles are going to have a significant impact on others. It's definitely worth checking out the hardware. The DMA driving the sound chip was pretty unique. But it also came many years after the Atari. If you look at the other later machines you'll find a lot of machines that had major potential. Edited January 14, 2009 by JamesD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts